Knock knock… yoohoo… Golf Digest… Golf World… over here.
There are hundreds of thousands of golfers just getting word that their favorite golf magazine is ceasing publication. Your sister magazine, I might add. No word of it on your sites except for the standard press release that’s practically buried? Did you know the subscription link for Golf For Women is still live on your sites?
These other Condé Nast publications, Golf Digest and Golf World do a fair job covering female players and topics important to women. Now they should be stepping up to do even more and provide a foster home for displaced readers. But where’s the love?
We still don’t know the fate of the Golf For Women website, so we still may have that online refuge, but I would have thought GD and GW would have been reporting this news and attempting to comfort us with word on their plans to accommodate GFW’s subscribers.
Susan Reed’s farewell message indicated that GFW would be transferring subscriptions to other Condé Nast publications, and I imagine many people will choose Golf Digest or Golf World if they don’t already subscribe. Shouldn’t those publications be doing something to ensure that? Looks like Jerry Tarde is tardy with his “hello message” assignment from Golf Digest. Same for Geoff Russell over at Golf World. Or don’t they want all these potential eyes? I bet their advertisers do, and if they don’t care about that, perhaps they’re next on the list to fold.
With the timing of the closure coming on the heels of Susan Reed’s departure to O Magazine, it appears that Condé Nast just couldn’t be bothered to replace her and keep it going, indicating some apathy toward a burgeoning demographic. The economic downturn can be cited as a reason, but then wouldn’t they at least want to secure the readers they had at other Condé Nast publications or are those magazines successful enough without us? Or do they just think we’ll flock to them with nowhere else to go? Someone will step in and fill the void that GFW leaves for an entire segment of golf magazine readers but come on, guys, show us that you care.
July 10, 2008 at 12:06 am
Well, hopefully they’ll at least give the readers a choice of the publication they want. I heard that when edgy “Jane” was shuttered they just automatically gave everyone to “Glamour”. A book that’s much more …vanilla.
The link on GFW in now directing those who click, to a page showing all of the Conde titles, but theres no additional word on what the current subscribers will get.
And as you point out, no word from Golf Digest/World. The real shame would be if GFW subscribers just gave up and opted for “Glamour”.
July 10, 2008 at 12:17 am
hang on hang on hang on…”hundreds of thousands” of readers ??? If GFW had hundreds of thousands of subscribers – they would be sitting on the throne – not GD or GW. Nast would be swimming in advertising dollars and singing the praises of GFW.
As it is, both GD and GW subscriptions and renewals can be bought for less than it costs to produce and mail. They are living off of advertising revenue – not subscriptions. GFW wasn’t doing well enough to do that.
Saying that GD and GW SHOULD step up to give support to GFW puts GFW on the level of the WNBA – it would be a welfare publication. Again – not good business.
I know this might sound like bad language – but Nast isn’t in business because they just has billions of dollars to burn – they are in business to MAKE MONEY. As much as I liked GFW, I can’t blame them for cutting their losses.
This is not a socialist country – not yet at least – the government doesn’t own or run these magazines. This is still a more or less free market economy – and occassionally, businesses and parts of businesses have to close to keep the rest of the business above water.
Walk past a magazine rack at the supermarket or book store – most of the women oriented magazines are gossip rags, and that just doesn’t fit the world of golf very well. (thankfully)
Now – maybe GD/GW could be persuaded to have a chick section in each issue – bring in a women’s fashion and equipment editor to put in articles targeting women golfers instead of running the same tired instruction articles month after month.
G-Chick – reading your posts and getting a peek into how you live your life, it’s pretty obvious that you do not live your life as a socialist leaning person who believes that people and businesses should be FORCED to give their resources to someone else just because another business can’t make it.
GFW is/was a business – businesses are built to make money for the owners – and if they don’t – they go away. That’s Business 101 – Day 1. It doesn’t mean that someone else can’t take up the idea that the other person couldn’t make work before and run with it – it just means that either they couldn’t make it do what they wanted it to do – or the market just wasn’t there. But you can’t get mad at GD/GW and demand that they make up for what GFW couldn’t do.
I liked the spunk in the other posts – it sounded more like someone who wanted to see what she could do to take a women’s golf publication to the next level and make it work where these guys couldn’t.
July 10, 2008 at 12:56 am
Oh Court,
You rarely fail to misinterpret my posts so that you’ll have a platform to make some point.
GFW’s own information (including Susan’s farewell message) says they have 600K+ subscribers. That they give away a lot of those doesn’t mean the advertisers aren’t interested in having the attention of this demographic.
I was suggesting that GD and GW should cater to us for their own good as well as ours rather than alienating the segment. We shouldn’t have to “persuade” or beg for any of it. It makes business sense. And women are interested in more about golf than fashion and equipment, thank you very much.
And yes, I’m fired up to provide an alternative whether or not they step up.
July 10, 2008 at 1:19 am
600,000+ subscribers – not a chance. if they had that many paying subscribers, the magazine wouldn’t be going under.
I didn’t say that the advertisers weren’t interested in the demographic – of COURSE they are interested – but they may not have been getting enough payoff from the advertising dollars.
There was no interpretation of your words for a “platform” dear. What you wrote was very clear – you want someone else to pay for a failed business – you want GD/GW to “cater” to you. Your words not mine. Guess what – they DID cater to you – and it didn’t work.
We are not disagreeing that it would be great to include something specific on women’s golf and women’s interests – but these are not stupid people. They are going to examine a lot of options and avenues – then pick what they think will work best.
Just a guess – but I think the blogging you and Patricia have been doing is going to be a part of what comes next. If you were getting enough hits and reactions, you, or other bloggers and writers like you could be part of a step to a fully internet based publication. You never know – but you can bet it will be considered.
Like I said – I was a big fan of GFW – and I am confident that another incarnation will become available before too long.
July 10, 2008 at 2:14 am
First, I specifically indicated they weren’t all paid subscriptions and I think we agree that it’s advertising that floats a boat.
Second, I never asked for anyone to “pay for a failed business.” We don’t actually know if/why the GFW arm failed, but Condé Nast is one company, so why let current customers down rather than trying to capture them for the benefit of all? We’re an important base they already have and the smart thing to do would be to appeal (if not cater) to us before we slip away. That’s retaining customers and transferring revenue potential from one publication to another. In other words, earning from the cessation of GFW – the opposite of paying for a failure.
If you’re right about advertisers not getting enough ROI from GFW (and again, we don’t know that’s the case), that’s probably related to the content and types of advertisements being placed. I’ve seen a lot of negative comments from people about being bombarded by the “Glamour”-like ads for high-priced fashion in GFW. I bet the golfers who want Glamour magazine already get it and those advertisers are probably seeing their return over there. Put Glamour content in a golf magazine under the same company umbrella and you’ll get some cannibalization.
We all want golf (or we wouldn’t have subscribed to GFW), and not just a chick section in a predominantly male magazine. How about a golf magazine for real women with a glamour-chick section?
July 10, 2008 at 2:27 am
ok – here’s a question for you – how are you defining a “predominantly male magazine” ?
July 10, 2008 at 2:43 am
oh – in the nicest possible way that describes GD and GW (why suggest a chick section if they’re not)
OR
The ones with all the Cialis ads
July 10, 2008 at 3:10 am
come on now – you don’t expect me to accept THAT, do you ? that was an evasion – not an answer.
July 10, 2008 at 3:28 am
That’s the answer you’re getting. I thought it was pretty clear and for once wouldn’t require further explanation.
July 10, 2008 at 3:52 am
Sorry – that won’t pass. An evasion doesn’t get it done. (do we have any lovely parting gifts ?)
so you think that a “male oriented” magazine is defined simply by an advertisement ?? pretty weak. So, if there is an ad in a “men’s” magazine, is it no longer a men’s magazine ? what about a men’s product in a “women’s” magazine ?
I used to be a tennis instructor – in mixed group clinics, we used to get a debate going – what does it mean “play like a boy” or “play like a girl” ? It was fun, especially when I cheated and told the boys I didn’t want them to “play like boys” and told the girls I wanted them to “play like girls” – what I wanted them to do was “play like TENNIS players”. The boys liked to grunt and swing as hard as they could and it didn’t matter how many balls got hit over the fences. The girls would pitty-pat balls over the net, afraid to make a mistake. Neither method was very good – so we started working on playing tennis.
SO – forget the advertising – what is a “male oriented” golf magazine ? what is a “female oriented” golf magazine ? what would it take to have a happy medium ?
July 17, 2008 at 1:00 am
Just another victim of the poor economy. They’ll be back in a different form someday… no worries.
http://www.golf.net
July 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm
It is disappointing that they couldn’t keep the magazine running. I was recently approached by a rep from one of the “male” golf magazines wanting me to purchase some advertising space. What they currently offer for women is almost comical, but maybe they’ll add a ladies section since they’re going after all the old GFW advertisers.
Jen
Pink Golf Tees – Your source for Ladies Golf Apparel, Ladies Golf Bags, Ladies Golf Shoes, Ladies Golf Shirts, Ladies Golf Gifts and more!
August 3, 2008 at 2:29 am
Thanks for the post